AlanG Posted December 3, 2012 Share #1 Posted December 3, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) What Kodak could still learn from Polaroid - The Washington Post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Wash. Post article on Kodak and Polaroid. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Michael Hiles Posted December 3, 2012 Share #2 Posted December 3, 2012 Assuming the article is right about Kodak selling off the film business, it raises questions about other issues like C41 processing. Does anyone besides Kodak produce C41 chemicals? If Portra is still viable (maybe in some else's hands) how to process it? I suppose selling the film business also means selling the remaining chemicals business... C41 machines are becoming scarcer these days, and it is not clear what the Plan B is. Similar question about light sensitive colour paper and chemicals. If the only way to print a C41 colour negative is to scan and print digitally - what then is the point? I wonder what this says about 120 and large format film... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 3, 2012 Share #3 Posted December 3, 2012 Assuming the article is right about Kodak selling off the film business, it raises questions about other issues like C41 processing. Does anyone besides Kodak produce C41 chemicals? . Kodak aren't the only producers of C41 chemicals. Fuji and Tetenal make it, there are no doubt others too. You can find DIY info on the web too. Kodak aren't selling off their film business - or at least that was the gist of their last statement to the press, but then their strategy is probably changing daily. Their last press release was completely baffling, but they stated after that they would continue to make film. Interesting, 31 million single use film cameras sold in 2011. I wonder how many rolls of film were sold? (excluding cinema film). Of course Kodak's undoing was their failure to compete in the digital market. Film has kept them limping along for years, making up for the losses in their digital divisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted December 4, 2012 Share #4 Posted December 4, 2012 I thought one key was the idea that a company should do what others can't. Moving into digital got away from the basic skills of film and camera companies, and into the skill areas of electronics giants. Besides facing huge competition, Kodak would have had to catch-up on the electronics tech that others already had. Previous anti-trust settlements had barred them from being an all-in-one supplier with processing included with film sales. With all the questions from new film users about where to get it processed, perhaps the buyer of the film business could again bundle with mailers, etc. to gain an edge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 4, 2012 Share #5 Posted December 4, 2012 Kodak were leading the market in digital to start with, they just couldn't keep up with the competition in recent years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted December 5, 2012 Share #6 Posted December 5, 2012 Kodak were leading the market in digital to start with, they just couldn't keep up with the competition in recent years. correct its was just strategy mistakes Fuji did it better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.